Oh, most certainly... Apple's CLOSED loop system is what was their almost DOOM before and they seemed to have learned nothing from it. IT is why MS kicked their butt! Remember walking down the software isles in the CompUSA or wherever... 15 isles of MS software covering ANYTHING you wished to accomplish compared to the 2 isles of Mac software that all did the same thing. For the first few years, MAC could do what MS couldn't in the graphical world, but that gap eroded year after year until there really is no difference anymore. It was amusing to watch Apple make their OS mimic Windows so that (MS Windows) software could run on it... knowing they had a problem.

Apple has done some good things, mostly their marketing has all the power and the devices are attractive cause it simplifies always, user input to accomplish a goal or task. But to many, simpler is not always better.

That all said... Apple is fighting blindly in this instance with regard to the Flash issue. HTML 5 won't be pushed along any faster than the NET will allow and that won't be for a few years yet. Anyway... all just MHO... and $.02.

If it wasnt for apple sending every phone Mfr into a frenzy when they released the first iPhone none of us would have devices like anything close to what we have today. We would all still be in a phone stone age or even worse...gulp...Windows moblie phone age.

HTML 5 is a promising technology, too bad it would take years for people to accept HTML 5 above flash, simply because there are more flash content in the web then there is HTML 5. For now at least, Flash is still the more desirable.

doesn't the highlighted (green/red) part just mean apple makes their own hardware, while linux, android and windows are intended to be run on 3rd party hardware?

the chart even says "macintosh" rather than "os x" and "iphone" instead of "iphone os" - they are devices, not os's, unlike linux android and windows (ok, linux isn't either if we're being anal, but you get the point)

the supply-side user's perspective is imo what's wrong with the iphone (among other things)

doesn't the highlighted (green/red) part just mean apple makes their own hardware, while linux, android and windows are intended to be run on 3rd party hardware?

the chart even says "macintosh" rather than "os x" and "iphone" instead of "iphone os" - they are devices, not os's, unlike linux android and windows (ok, linux isn't either if we're being anal, but you get the point)

the supply-side user's perspective is imo what's wrong with the iphone (among other things)

Click to expand...

Yeah. To me, that's the most important part. That is why a closed platform in that area will never dominate the market. When an operating systems opens itself to many devices by different manufacturers, it becomes unstoppable.

And I don't know why it's called Macintosh and iPhone... It's supposed to be comparing the operating systems that run on those devices.

I dint think many understand that most average consumers want a closed, solid, secure, platform such as the iphone. Anyone complaining about it should have the know how to jailbreak it, then it is just as open as android...

If it wasnt for apple sending every phone Mfr into a frenzy when they released the first iPhone none of us would have devices like anything close to what we have today. We would all still be in a phone stone age or even worse...gulp...Windows moblie phone age.

I dint think many understand that most average consumers want a closed, solid, secure, platform such as the iphone. Anyone complaining about it should have the know how to jailbreak it, then it is just as open as android...

Click to expand...

Then you can risk Apple intentionally bricking it, if you aren't careful.

I dint think many understand that most average consumers want a closed, solid, secure, platform such as the iphone. Anyone complaining about it should have the know how to jailbreak it, then it is just as open as android...

Click to expand...

That was the same thing said about PC's way back in the day. Android is not completely open source, Google does not release 100% of the source file. However, a completely closed OS is not the answer. Why? Developers. Think about it, developers are starting to move to Android, and with the new rules put in place for creating an app on the iPhone, I would not be shocked to see some devs completely stop writing for the iPhone (not right now, but in the future).

Your average user doesn't know what they want.. part of the reason iphone sells so well.. it is flashy.. it does flashy things.. even if its not really for "power users".

Android has a big advantage though, it is not trying to keep an "elitist" status.. lets face it, part of the iphone craze is so many people not being able to get one.. I work selling phones, and you wouldn't believe how many people I have seen want an iphone all the more just because there is an 800$ deposit.

So if people see that android can do everything and more that iphone can.. at a possibly cheaper cost.. then your gunna see android start selling..

plus, using android is more like using a desktop computer. I feel more like i'm navigating windows than using some strange OS when I use android. That is going to sell a lot of people because, it feels and functions more like a desktop than a phone...

Let's say that the iDevices are better because they don't support flash.

So what?

I just don't see a closed-platform OS dominating the market. Ever.

Open-platform OS (Microsoft Windows, Google Android) will always come out on top no matter what happens.

Flash or no flash, Android is still open, while every OS Apple makes isn't.

Click to expand...

2 things. The iPhone and its "closed" OS has been dominating its market for 3 years, so there goes one of your theories. Second, several companies have already finished and will soon be using emulators that convert flash video to h.264 or some other useable codec when it detects an iPad. Nice try though

I know many people who are against iPhones for the fact that they just do not need one, or need a device that does that number of things. These people all seem to have Nokia N95, 97s, or the E71s and such. They can facebook, text and make calls. That is all they need.
That is why i think there are still large numbers of Symbian users out there.

I know many people who are against iPhones for the fact that they just do not need one, or need a device that does that number of things. These people all seem to have Nokia N95, 97s, or the E71s and such. They can facebook, text and make calls. That is all they need.
That is why i think there are still large numbers of Symbian users out there.

Click to expand...

you've got to be kidding
symbian is probably the most versatile mobile platform out there - any power user that knows their shit would get symbian over iphone any day

only reason i don't like symbian in its current form is the bad ui... well, and how much of a bitch it is to code to
hopefully those two things will be improved upon with s^3 and/or s^4